AMD vs Intel

[bill macdonald]

Neon,
thanks for the validation and the tip for searching.

bill

[Mark H]

The way I searched was to search for "AMD and Intel." This worked for me by returning every thread that has both the words AMD and Intel in it.

Mark H

[Mr. Sam]

I agree with neon. I likewise searched for "AMD vs Intel" with "Match all words" with no results. Then I tried the same search word with "Match as phrase" and got this thread. Like bill... thanks for the tip neon. :)

[Carskick]

My previous systems

1993
Dell - family computer
Intel 486DX 66MHz
4MB RAM, which was upped to 16 right away
Windows 3.1
256 color who the heck knows video card
It had sound and Labtec Speakers.

1998
HP - My computer (now my Mom's computer)
PII 450 MHZ
128MB RAM, several years later upped to 256MB
Windows 98
Integrated ATI Rage pro 2x w/8MB VRAM, several years later upped to a PNY MX420 PCI w/64MB VRAM
Ensoniq sound card

1999
HP - Mom's computer (replacement for 486, now my radio station server)
AMD K6-2 350MHz
32MB RAM > 96MB RAM > 64MB RAM
Windows 98
Integrated Sis video w/4MB shared memory
Ensoniq sound card

2003
HP - My computer (current)
AMD AthlonXP 2600+
512MB RAM
Windows XP Home
Integrated MX video w/64MB shared memory, quickly upped to a PNY FX5600 Ultra
Integrated Realtek 97 5.1 sound.


The K6-2's were okay. They were a lot cheaper than P2s, but didn't perform nearly as well. The current AthlonXPs are a lot cheaper than P4s but perform similarily. I see a brand switch over the years.  :)
I've only bought 2 aftermarket video cards, and both were both Nvidia & PNY. Not loyal, just a good deal, and I knew I trusted them.

[iansl]

199? (given to us, since I'm a computer fanatic): 486SX
1992: 486SX
1996: AMD K5 100MHz
1997 (notebook, given to us): Pentium 200 MHz w\MMX
2000: Celeron 400MHz (Won this one :), Albertsons was just opening in the town we lived in them)
2004: Pentium 4 2.6 GHz

Now that AMD's Athlon 64 line is reasonably established, I'd be glad to reccommend an AMD system. I bought Intel because of a) HP media centers only had that at that point b) the Intels gave you dual channel ddr400 thatt was actually used right out of the box. I don't know specifically about the AMD, but I suspect you could rig it to dual channel, thereby blowing away Intel in terms of price\speed (you can get a prcessor probably 500MHz faster, in performance with the same price via AMD). As you can see, though, I've only had one AMD system. But I have relatives (namely by computer-savvy grandad) that would probably rather spend intel-class money on an AMD processor than the other way around. Both processors work great. It's just that enthusiasts and low-fi manufacturers use AMD more (take eMachines as my example) simply because they are cheaper and (at least used to be) come configureable (read overclockable), which added lustre for enthusiasts.

There's my 2 cents. Hope that helped.

[Mark H]

The current socket 754 AMD 64 chips are only single channel RAM. When they go to socket 939, they will support dual channel RAM.

Mark H

[Mr. Sam]

Okkk.....what's that socket you're talking about?(I totally dont know what that means, not knowing too much computer jargon ???) By "chips" I assume you're talking about chipsets? And what's singel channel and dual channel RAM? Say hello to the newbie... ;)

[Mark H]

The socket number is the number of pins that the chips (processors) possess. The 754 and 939 sockets are for the AMD 64 processors.

Single channel RAM has one pathway data to travel. Dual channel RAM has two simultaneous pathways for data to travel, which doubles the throughput. It is like a 4 lane highway being compared to a 2 lane highway. For dual channel systems, you have to buy RAM chips in multiples of two for dual channel to work.

Intel processors use a 478 socket, but will be changing to a different socket in the very near future.

[Nestor]

Intel has stability and reliability, plus, it's a good family name. you could name your pet Wintel, and not get looked at funny.
AMD is cheaper, IMHO more aggressive, and you can overclock. Just be careful when you do it. You would use the name 'Athlon XP' to frighten the trick-or-treating kids on halloween.

AMD is typical of gamers and graphics people, while Intel is tyour more stable and sane variety of number-cruncher and Word processor guys.

Okay, maybe not. You've got strengths and weaknesses with both of them. I own 2 AMD's (2200+ and 2500+) and an Intel p4 1.6 and i see much better performance with AMD, but I know that the Intel is far more reliable.

[Mr. Sam]

Ok, I get it now. So does the socket number indicate how many pins the chips possess? And um... what's a pin? :P

[bill macdonald]

"pins" protrude from the bottom of the processor (the chip). Internally they connect all the parts.  Externally, the pins plug into a socket, that connects the processor to the circuits on the motherboard.  It is exactlly the same principal as the prongs or "pins" on a electrical cord plug being pushed into the wall outlet or socket. the differences being the size and number of "pins"

bill

[Mr. Sam]

Oh, I see now. Thanks for explaining it to me! ;) And, just out of curiosity, does "pin" stand for something, or is it just a name?

[Neon]

pin    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pn)
n.

  1.
        1. A short, straight, stiff piece of wire with a blunt head and a sharp point, used especially for fastening.

[Whizbang]

I own 2 AMD's (2200+ and 2500+) and an Intel p4 1.6 and i see much better performance with AMD, but I know that the Intel is far more reliable.

Could the reason for reliablility lie with the user rather than the processor itself?  I have had an AMD 1333 for several years and it has never given me a problem, but I do not overclock and am quite happy that I can just get the computer to run the loaded programs.  I now have an AMD XP 2600 in my main system with very low heat levels (CPU 91?F right now).  I think I might be over-stating the case if I compared an AMD user to a snowboarder and an Intel user to a skier, but I have no doubt that AMD overclockers tend to run the failure rate up quite a bit, and "D*** the torpedoes; full speed ahead!"

[Nestor]

you're going to scoff, but I haven't overclocked either one. The 2200 can't be overclocked, and the 2500+ is fine where it's at, though I may overclock in the future. But what I mean by stability, is that I've had less program crashes with my Intel. But the programs lock up more with the Intel. There's a balance, I suppose.

[Andrew S]

Ok, in my opinion, if a program locks up you might as well have said crash. lol.  I have used systems professionaly built using Intel and have noticed that every AMD system i've ever used/built is far better then intel.

I prefer AMD, i personally think AMD is more stable then Intel(or at least as stable)

AMD ALL THE WAY
I will ALWAYS used AMD and NEVER use Intel as long as AMD exists

[iansl]

I got an intel because that's all they had for MCE at that time and i'm satisfied. You'll be satisfied if you do AMD, especially with 64, probably more than if you do it with Intel, even without dualchannel memory, as AMD64s have an on-chip memory controller, which means that you don't have to got hrough the chipset to access the memory, which increases performance. Athlon 64 FXs (51 and 53, da bombs :)) are the ones with tons of pins (950 or so) and they use dual channel controllers, therefore whipping Intel to pieces as of this moment, and can also do bad things to Apple PCs, as PCWorld showed a few months ago. By this I mean they tested a dual 2 GHz G5 system against a single-processor, lower-priced (I think) FX-51 Alienware, and unless the software was optimized for the G5 the FX came out ahead. Now, with the FX-53, that lead is gonna stay, and get larger, until Apple comes out with another "next big thing" system. Well, I can't sit on the internet until kingdom come, so CUL, guys!

[Carskick]

I've heard several people say Intel is more reliable and or stable. How is that? I've had no problems with the CPU on either my AMD K6-2 or Athlon 2600+. My P2 has all the problems, but I don't think they are processor realted.

[Andrew S]

Carskick, of course it is processor related ;) , AMD is  much better haha

I cant go and say that though, but i think AMD is just as stable as Intel is

[Wade777]

I've had no problems with AMD ... of course, with both processors you are likely to find some with problems.

[Neon]

Yea, I've heard the same arguments - from dealers who sell only Intel-based systems. WAY back in the K5 and early K6 days, there were some problems. Those AMD processors ran quite hot, certainly hotter than the contemporary Intel processors.

The big problem however was buggy chipset designs and drivers, some of which continued to the early K7. Many of you may remember all of the squabbling about the Via KT133 chipset incompatibility with Soundblaster sound cards. Everybody had soundblasters, so there was a lot of wailing. It turned out to be Creative's fault, because their implementation deviated from the PCI standards, but AMD's reputation got the blame.

That stuff is ancient history now.

[Andrew S]

AHH yes, I remember those days, i started out on a good ol' K6-2 300 MHz AMD.  I definatly remember the problesm with soundblasters.

[Igloo]

ancient history could only be a month ago.... :-\\

anywho, i thgink i will like my 64 system, when its done :(

[trav]

:( my PC is out of date :(

866mghz VS 3000mghz

its sad, isnt it? :'(

[iansl]

I think that once again Intel has surpassed AMD in the notebook market. Dothan has come, and is roughly 1.5X GHz speed. That means 2 GHz = ~3000+, AMD's fastest mobile chip. Wait...let me check...no, wait! AMD is still ahead just a tad! Long live AMD!

[Nestor]

yes.... long live AMD... yes.... ;D

[Chandler]

I don't see any point in building an Intel-based PC anymore; you can put together a much more powerful system using AMD for the same price.  I have friends who I've tried to convince to move to AMD but they refuse to go away from Intel.

The reason that I mentioned building is that if you're buying a ready built system such as a Dell then you may be able to get a good price on Intel, and of course for notebooks there's Intel Centrino technology.

The last machine I built was an AMD and installation was painless.  My next build is also going to be AMD and costs considerably less than other people's P4 builds of similar speed.

[Neon]

then you may be able to get a good price on Intel, and of course for notebooks there's Intel Centrino technology.

Point of order - Centrino is not a technology, it is a marketing term that designates a notebook with the Pentium-M processor, i855 chipset, and Intel Pro/wireless 2100 chip.

Manufacturers that meet all of those requirements can label their notebooks as Centrino, and have access to Centrino marketing funds. The marketing strategy is apparently designed to force everyone to use Intel 's wireless chip - eventually it will get integrated into the chipset.

[Nestor]

You know, (based on what you've said) Intel is beginning to remind me of the Great Blind Elder Gods that H.P. Lovecraft always went on and on (and on) about. Except we can say the 'Intel' and not fear for our sanity...

wait. :o

[iansl]

Ahhh, revelation...

But it is sort of a technology. Pentium M + i855 chipset + 2100 wireless =  Centrino. Then if you use it you get eh marketing funds...

I think Intell's only chance is in this, and only this, market...

Long Live Pentium M

Longer Live AMD!